eq2fandomcom-20200225-history
User talk:Rittmeister64/adornments-test
Adornment table How about this, to compress it a bit? I'm open to discussion. Heck, there are more ways that they can be set. You could create a page for T10 Adornments by Stat and do it that way. Or maybe keep the T10 Adornment by Slot page like it is, but append the stat to the end, like this: Whichever works. Necrotherian (talk) 01:41, December 22, 2012 (UTC) When I need upgrades, I usually look per slot, what adornments are best for my eg. charm, or feet, etc... The list should have all whites, if possible also greens. yellow and red surely are a lot of work, dunno if we can/want to do it all. probably yes. To cut down the tables with, we can use shortened names like eg. Astr. Adorn. of Agil. (L) ; or +4% MA Chance, etc.. I like it best when the stats are in the 2nd slot, because I don't care how the frikkin stuff is called, I wanna see what to get first, then the name, and finally where (crafter, merchant, etc) Rittmeister64 (talk) 02:47, December 22, 2012 (UTC) :The placement (of the name and effect (stats) columns) is pretty much a user preference kind of thing. I personally think it looks better with the linked text on one side and the non-linked text on the other (but that's just it - a personal preference). It would probably be a good idea to get consensus of some sort (by showing different possibilities and letting users state the one they prefer). :A compromise between them could be to reverse the order that I put them in for the second example table. Like this - : :Since all the player-made white adorns in T10 are, by definition, Astral Adornments, we might be able to get away with a note at the top relaying this fact (something to the effect of "All player-made white adornments in this tier use the following naming convention: 'Astral Adornment of '." That would allow us to just put, for example, Haste(L) in the "Name" column, then we could make it considerably more compact while still allowing a quick glance to suffice. I still think there should be a consensus before any changes are made. Necrotherian (talk) 06:59, December 22, 2012 (UTC) :: alright, I just make my private adornment page then. Consensus? Aint gonna happen anyway, and I don't know how the wiki would stage a democratic election about any question. Rittmeister64 (talk) 14:07, December 22, 2012 (UTC) ::: AFAIK, the question would be posed in the forum, then a reasonable amount of time would be alloted for discussion of the subject, then after that identified time period (the admins could give better guidance on what constitutes a reasonable amount of time) the results of the discussion would be tallied and the format selected by the consensus would be used. (Of course, there may be easier methods of getting consensus, of which I am not aware. Don't know if there are, because I know nothing of them.) Necrotherian (talk) 16:04, December 22, 2012 (UTC)